Hi Denis,
This is exactly what I think complete processes mean (and what I meant with critical path..). We will use complete processes as agreed.
Kindest regards,
Eric
________________________________________
Van: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org] namens Denis Boudreau [dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com]
Verzonden: woensdag 21 september 2011 21:30
Aan: Eval TF
Onderwerp: Re: Terminology: critical
Hi all,
Same here. Cover complete process might be a more appropriate formulation.
Just so I validate my own understanding, I was under the impression that "critical path analysis" actually meant being able to assess specific navigation patterns, like making sure a transactional process is accessible from beginning to end, or for instance on a conference website, that the user could go from the homepage to the details of a specific conference by going through the website' page schedule without any problem.
Have I ben misled this whole time?
/Denis
On 2011-09-18, at 8:27 PM, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
> HI all
>
> I also like the term 'cover complete processes' for R11. It keeps things in line with WCAG 2.0 and also explains it better.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Vivienne L. Conway
> ________________________________________
> From: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kerstin Probiesch [k.probiesch@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, 16 September 2011 7:08 PM
> To: Detlev Fischer
> Cc: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Terminology: critical
>
> Hi all,
>
> I agree with Detlev's suggestion:
>
> R11
> Cover Complete Processes
>
> Otherwise it could sound as if there are processes and critical processes.
>
> Best
>
> Kerstin
>
> Via Mobile
>
> Am 15.09.2011 um 19:41 schrieb Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>:
>
>> DF: I think critical is not really necessary for the definion of paths or processes. We can just refer ti the WCAG 2.0 conformance statement and call it complete processes. As with other elements of the page sample, processes that are central to the use of the site must be included. Whether that means testing every SC on every page or state of the process even if much remains the same will need further work.
>> I would reformulate and call it R11: Cover complete processes
>>
>> Quoting Samuel Sirois <ssirois@accessibiliteweb.com>:
>>
>>> Hi Eval TF,
>>>
>>> I do believe that we should find a "critical" definition in the
>>> terminology definition.
>>>
>>> For me, associating that with "path", "process", "work-flow" or else
>>> doesn't really matters if I can't know what is indeed "critical".
>>>
>>> What is critical? I won't pretend I am able to formulate a definition,
>>> but I may suggest what I do believe is critical to start the
>>> conversation.
>>>
>>> I basically see three things as being critical regarding accessibility.
>>>
>>> * Contact page, so that if anything goes wrong, the user is able
>>> to obtain information on how to communicate with the website's
>>> owners.
>>> * Accessibility page, so that if there is any hints on how to
>>> improve the experience on the website, the user is able to
>>> access that information.
>>> * The main goal of the website as seen by the owners. If the
>>> owners want to sell items from a boutique, then the items
>>> catalogue and the payment process should be conform to WCAG 2.0.
>>> If the owners want to offer the users a place to exchange ideas
>>> on a specific subject, then whatever the tool used (forum, blog,
>>> mailing list) should be conform to WCAG 2.0.
>>>
>>> I believe it is less critical (and less frustrating) for users if the
>>> "historical page" is not fully conform to WCAG 2.0 if the user can still
>>> complete and use whatever the website has to offer.
>>>
>>> When I am sampling for an evaluation, that's what I have in mind when I
>>> think about something "critical".
>>>
>>> Is that any close to what others had in mind?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Samuel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Detlev Fischer PhD
>> DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
>> GeschÃ¤ftsfÃ¼hrung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
>>
>> Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
>> Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84
>> Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19
>> E-Mail: fischer@dias.de
>>
>> Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg
>> Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167
>> GeschÃ¤ftsfÃ¼hrer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of the information provided.
>
> CRICOS IPC 00279B
>